Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 10-27-2002, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:


At any rate, some caution and indeed skepticism is called for when interpreting statistics, particularly if the statistical analysis is coming from historians.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

Let me add to Apikorus' argument:

In addition to the frequency of James, there is another issue, that is: the box dates from 20 BCE to at least 70 CE and a little later. Thus, there are at least three generations of "james" who could wind up on a box over this time. The odds are not at all bad that we would find a box with those names on it.

Vorkosigan

Sauron · 10-27-2002, 03:51 PM

Apparently it's leaving Israel.

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/27/jesus.inscription.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/27/jesus.inscription.ap/index.html</a>

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israel said Sunday it has granted a four-month export license for an ancient burial box that may be the oldest archaeological link to Jesus.

Of interest is this section:

Dahari said Sunday that the collector, who does not want to be named, told him he bought the burial box about 30 years ago from a Jerusalem antiquities dealer.

Last week, Biblical Archaeology Review editor Hershel Shanks told a news conference that the collector bought the box about 15 years ago, and that it had been unearthed south of the Mount of Olives.

Dahari had no immediate explanation for the different dates on when the collector bought the ossuary.

Toto · 10-29-2002, 07:40 AM

Robert Eisenman has an op ed piece in the LA Times today with an interesting take (the title does not do the piece justice):

<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-eisenman29oct29.story" target="_blank">A Discovery That's Just Too Perfect</a>

He argues that James was not known as James the brother of Jesus until much later in history.

Quote:

. . .

Finally, the numerous contemporary sources I have already referred to know the location of James' burial site.

Hegesippus, a Palestinian native who lived perhaps 50 years after the events in question, tells us that James was buried where he was stoned beneath the pinnacle of the Temple in Jerusalem. Eusebius in the 4th century and Jerome in the 5th say the burial site with its marker was still there in their times.

No source, however, mentions an ossuary. Our creative artificers presumably never read any of these sources (nor beyond the first few chapters of my book) or they would have known better.

atrahasis · 10-29-2002, 08:59 AM

Toto,
I think Hegesippus is rather tricky because the info we have about him is from Eusebius - an unreliable source (Eusebius contradicted Josephus' on the account of James' death) and all the lies he made up in HE and DE). And given also that Hegessipus' account of the death of James contradicts Josephus' account.

So any info coming from Hegessipus is generally to be treated with utmost skepticism IMHO.

I beleive St. Jerome relied on Eusebius' writings to get info concerning James' burial.
Recognitions of Clement Sez James was thrown on the steps/stairs whereupon he died.

You do the math.

Toto · 10-29-2002, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Black Moses:
. . .Eusebius - an unreliable source . . .

You may be right, but I'd like to hear our Christian apologist friends say this. (Bede?)

Jayhawker Soule · 10-29-2002, 09:38 AM

There's also this interesting review which includes:

Quote:

When and where did the ancient Jews use ossuaries in their burials? Lemaire argues that ossuaries are known from Jerusalem in the first centuries AD and BC. This is true. But Jews also used ossuaries in the Jordan Valley and in Galilee, at least into the third century AD. So while the find fits Lemaire's claim, it also fits elsewhere and "else when."

< ... >

In what Aramaic dialect is the inscription written, and is that dialect appropriate for first-century Jerusalem? It turns out that although the dialect of the inscription can be made to fit into first-century Jerusalem, it actually fits much better with the Galilean dialect of the late second to sixth century. There are two linguistic indications that suggest the dialect of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, which was used in texts and inscriptions from Galilee of a century or more later.

- see <a href="http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/James'%20Ossuary.htm" target="_blank">Does the James' Ossuary really refer to Jesus Christ?</a>
- by Paul Flesher, Director, Religious Studies Program, University of Wyoming

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

10-29-2002, 09:40 AM

Moi, Toto?

Eusebius is certainly not a very reliable historian as he just uses the sources he likes uncritically. He never lied and made up stuff, but we don't need to believe that to be sceptical about what he reports.

I would rank Josephus's near contemporary account of James's death well above any fourth century source, Christian or not.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Toto · 10-29-2002, 10:57 AM

Bede - are you saying that Eusebius can't even be trusted when he says that James burial place was still there in his own time? Was that just a baseless rumor he was passing on?

Layman · 10-29-2002, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:


....
Next questions: what with BAR do with the egg on its face? Where is Layman now?

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]

Well, Sauron was right. I did have a lot of work to catch up on.

As for having "egg" on my face. Of course not.

First, I said that I was "tenatively confident based on the evidence to date". I also noted that:

Quote:

If more analysis or evidence tends to bring any of these points into contention, I would of course consider it and change my opinion. Since I think the Jesus-Myth idea is a silly one based on the existing evidence, I certainly do not think this "find" is needed to silence them. And since I've already seen JMers jump to the conclusion that this find is a "fake" or "fraud," I doubt very seriously that this would change their minds even if it holds up.

Second, it appears that Altman may be the one with egg on her face for making such strong accusations and statements based on internet pictures rather than a review of the article' better picture, or better yet, the ossuary itself.

According to Apikorus:

Quote:

Looking at the blow-up of the inscription, I can't detect that there are two different hands at work. One problem is that Yardeni's sketch, which was reproduced on the web sites as an "enhanced image" is not entirely faithful. For example, it contains a bigger space between the fe sofit of yosep and the aleph of akhui. Remember that it is precisely at this point where Altman maintains the second hand begins - perhaps she based her analysis in part on the sketch as well? Another difference is that when I take a straight-edge an place it above the tops of the letters on the photograph, it seems they all line up. Indeed the alignment is excellent based on the other inscriptions which I've seen (though only sketches) in the Rahmani catalog. Quite often one sees the letters are a real mess. So it seems to me that this was the work of a single rather careful scribe, and perhaps it is my own ignorance of Aramaic epigraphy which leads me to criticize the aleph and daleth as sloppy. It really is a very beautiful inscription.

Additionally, she appears to have made some pretty obvious mistakes that others were quick to catch:

Quote:

First, the inscription seems to be incised, not excised. On page 28 of his
article in the Biblical Archaeology Review, Lemaire states that the Aramaic letters "reveal a classical script carefully incised." Second, part of the discussion is based on a possible misreading of a letter daleth as a letter ayin.

And finally, many of the world's leading scholars on inscriptions have reviewed the ossuary and found it authentic. In addition to Lemarie and McCarty, other specialists have verified that the inscription is authentic.

Toto · 10-29-2002, 05:45 PM

Layman: the problem with Shanks and Lemaire from the beginning was that they were obviously stretching whatever meaning could be derived from this artifact, even if it had not been tampered with.

You yourself are overstating the case when you say that "other specialists have verified that the inscription is authentic." If by authentic, you mean that it refers to James the Just, the brother of Jesus, no one has verified that it is authentic. The best anyone can do is find a lack of evidence for it being a modern forgery.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-27-2002, 03:51 PM	#52
Sauron Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: In the dark places of the world Posts: 8,093	Apparently it's leaving Israel. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/27/jesus.inscription.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/27/jesus.inscription.ap/index.html</a> JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israel said Sunday it has granted a four-month export license for an ancient burial box that may be the oldest archaeological link to Jesus. Of interest is this section: Dahari said Sunday that the collector, who does not want to be named, told him he bought the burial box about 30 years ago from a Jerusalem antiquities dealer. Last week, Biblical Archaeology Review editor Hershel Shanks told a news conference that the collector bought the box about 15 years ago, and that it had been unearthed south of the Mount of Olives. Dahari had no immediate explanation for the different dates on when the collector bought the ossuary.

10-29-2002, 08:59 AM	#54
atrahasis Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: South of Sahara Posts: 216	Toto, I think Hegesippus is rather tricky because the info we have about him is from Eusebius - an unreliable source (Eusebius contradicted Josephus' on the account of James' death) and all the lies he made up in HE and DE). And given also that Hegessipus' account of the death of James contradicts Josephus' account. So any info coming from Hegessipus is generally to be treated with utmost skepticism IMHO. I beleive St. Jerome relied on Eusebius' writings to get info concerning James' burial. Recognitions of Clement Sez James was thrown on the steps/stairs whereupon he died. You do the math.

10-29-2002, 09:40 AM	#57
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Moi, Toto? Eusebius is certainly not a very reliable historian as he just uses the sources he likes uncritically. He never lied and made up stuff, but we don't need to believe that to be sceptical about what he reports. I would rank Josephus's near contemporary account of James's death well above any fourth century source, Christian or not. Yours Bede <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

10-29-2002, 10:57 AM	#58
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Bede - are you saying that Eusebius can't even be trusted when he says that James burial place was still there in his own time? Was that just a baseless rumor he was passing on?

10-29-2002, 05:45 PM	#60
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Layman: the problem with Shanks and Lemaire from the beginning was that they were obviously stretching whatever meaning could be derived from this artifact, even if it had not been tampered with. You yourself are overstating the case when you say that "other specialists have verified that the inscription is authentic." If by authentic, you mean that it refers to James the Just, the brother of Jesus, no one has verified that it is authentic. The best anyone can do is find a lack of evidence for it being a modern forgery.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.